Question

Shen has plans to go to an opera and already has a $100 nonrefundable, nonexchangeable, and nontransferable ticket. Now Valerie, whom Shen has wanted to date for a long time, asks him to a party. Shen would prefer to go to the party with Valerie and forgo the opera, but he doesn't want to waste the $100 he spent on the opera ticket. From the perspective of an economist, if Van decides to go to the party with Amy, what has he just done?
1. Incorrectly allowed a sunk cost to influence his decision

2. Made a choice that was not optimal

3 Correctly ignored a sunk cost

Answer 1

Answer:

3. Correctly ignored a sunk cost

Explanation:

Sunk costs refer to those costs which have been incurred in the past, which are non recoverable and which have no current or future benefits.

Sunk costs are considered as irrelevant for decision making process as they do not relate to current period and have no future implications. For example, research and development expenditure incurred in the past represents a sunk cost.

In the given case, the ticket for opera was already purchased for $100 which can now neither be recovered nor transferred. Thus this cost is irrelevant for decision making as expenditure has already been made. When Shen decided to go for a party instead of the concert, Shen has correctly ignored a sunk cost.